The Genius of Charles Darwin

905 wrote:

I didn't watch the programme, but I understand Dawkins bemoans the current idea of intelligent design, and the fact that evolution is no more accepted now than it was a century ago.

To me that begs the question as to why acceptance of evolution should be the status quo. Has science become a popularity contest? In my view, such public mudfights do little more than drag science down to the level of ID.

I don't like the idea of the scientist in his ivory tower, aloof from the herd and oblivious to the everyday consequences of his actions. Eugenics and the atom bomb should have put paid to that idea. But neither should they rate their success by how popular their ideas are. There is a balance to be struck and evolution has often come out on the pathetic side. I reckon that the reason evolution is often singled out as the chief fiend in science (how much of science is contrary to the bible?) is because of the bellicose nature of the debate from the time of Huxley onwards. It became the posterchild of science, and has suffered all the humilations that that post entails.

Are you meaning that you are persuaded that evolution is not a valid theory?

I do think the question of why so many people adhere to irrational and non-scientific beliefs is interesting. I don't think you can blame it on the poor scientists, who are doing their best.

cactus flower wrote:

905 wrote:

I didn't watch the programme, but I understand Dawkins bemoans the current idea of intelligent design, and the fact that evolution is no more accepted now than it was a century ago.

To me that begs the question as to why acceptance of evolution should be the status quo. Has science become a popularity contest? In my view, such public mudfights do little more than drag science down to the level of ID.

I don't like the idea of the scientist in his ivory tower, aloof from the herd and oblivious to the everyday consequences of his actions. Eugenics and the atom bomb should have put paid to that idea. But neither should they rate their success by how popular their ideas are. There is a balance to be struck and evolution has often come out on the pathetic side. I reckon that the reason evolution is often singled out as the chief fiend in science (how much of science is contrary to the bible?) is because of the bellicose nature of the debate from the time of Huxley onwards. It became the posterchild of science, and has suffered all the humilations that that post entails.

Are you meaning that you are persuaded that evolution is not a valid theory?

As it happens, I believe that evolution is a valid theory and indeed a valid fact. But that doesn't mean it's advocates haven't sometimes come as shrill and childish. Dawkins, for one, has extensive form on this.

cactus flower wrote:

I do think the question of why so many people adhere to irrational and non-scientific beliefs is interesting. I don't think you can blame it on the poor scientists, who are doing their best.

Strictly speaking, it is not the scientist's job to educate the masses. It would be very unscientific for them to go around telling people that they're wrong. But a scientist can no more cut himself off from the world and live in a little laboratory; at some stage they have to face up to the real world. An objective, sterile laboratory is not the real world. But when they do confront the real world they run the risk of behaving as if they were still in their element, secure in their rightness and objectivity, and impervious to the assault of the religious or the superstitious. As ID has shown, they have not had it all their way. It does no good for them to bewail the ignorance of the masses, just because the hoi polloi don't accept everything the scientist bludgeons into them.

For the most part, scientists have been able to face the public and exlpain their beliefs in a beneficial manner. Evolution, for some reason, brings out the worst in science's opponents and in the scientists themselves.

I heard Dawkins on RTE radio once and found him a very poor advocate of his cause. He doesn't seem to have any science based concept of why religion exists which is odd in an evolutionist. I agree about the irritation factor, but I think he is doing his best.

I think religion is very deeply ingrained in people's thought process. It is quite hard to find someone writing about evolution who clearly conveys how it works. We are getting there. I find it hard to believe that world wide the numbers now understanding evolution have not increased, particularly now that genetics are making the processes so much clearer.



Sorry, what is ID ?

ID is intelligent design.

Religion is not neccessarily deeply ingrained but belief is, and as much in scienctific minds as in religious ones.

I'm inclined to think it largely unimportant how many people believe in evolution. I don't see people fretting as mkuch over plate tectonics or string theory. And genetics have generated as much heat as light themselves in their modern form.

Dawkins has a theory as to why religion, or something, is part of people's minds, I remember he based a lot of argument on it. I'm sure its in The God Delusion. I remember because I wasn't bought by it myself, and it's main purpose (I suspect) was to validate his claim that religion is as much a menace as a benefit.

It is generally accepted that religious or spiritual beliefs are biological and occupy some part of the brain. But that neither proves nor disproves God's existence. Off the top of my head, an evolutionary reason for belief in a higher power might help with social bonding. It could have developed with no benefits at all.

I don't believe that religion is biological. I stopped believing in it when I was 9 and none of my brain functions altered in any way except perhaps I had to think and read more to try to understand the material world, rather than rely on belief.

Its refreshing to hear you say that religion may have no evolutionary benefits (as you say, there are various pieces of work that suggest social advantage in shared religious belief). There is not likely to be a once and for all answer to that question - my personal opinion is that there were advantages before science developed, but now it is a hindrance to knowledge and understanding.

No no, you're doing it again. Don't confuse belief or even spiritual belief with religion. Belief is the natural cause and religion (or any other strong belief system) is the cultural effect. Another example is aggression, which science generally considers to be natural. But how it is expressed can be completely at odds with the instinct. Chess and the First World War had the same biological cause but were very different effects.

Fact: there is a part of the brain that, when stimulated, provokes spiritual feelings in the average person. Mediatation is one such stimulation, while mediatating it can be shown that blood rushes to this part of the brain and away from parts that moniter one's awareness of time. Some people are more prone to spiritual feelings than others.

I think the idea that spititual belief was an evolutionary freak would be very rare. Even Dawkins attributed some beneficial (though redundant) cause to it.

Someone please tell me that we're not discussing creationism.

The creationist wannabe hypothesis does not compete with evolution, it's not science. The thing about science and particularly, theory, is that via rational examination, bad theory can be falsified. Creationism cannot be falsified and thus is not a theory, it isn't even a hypothesis.

One of the big guns of the creationism 'argument' is irreducible complexity. This idea suggests that the probability of life developing on its own (see we're now talking about abiogenisis not evolution) is so small, that the chances of it happening are impossible. A tiny bit of lateral thinking, shoots this joke of an argument into the back of the head. Get a deck of cards, shuffle it, deal 10 cards from the top, make a note of them and the order in which they appeared. Repeat the whole process 20 times. Now calculate the probability of the occurrence of all the cards you've made note of. According to creationists, the results you've noted can't have happened randomly - yeah, God did it. Funnily enough, creationists miss the irony that adding the complexity of a creator into the picture adds to the improbability rather than diminishing it.

There's a guy on youtube (Thunderf00t) who has brought the best arguments I've ever seen regarding creationism versus evolution. 25 videos in the series and one helluva education. Deals with the debunked flagellum argument too. The creationists even got whipped by the tail of the flagellum in the Dover trial. Here's a link to the transcript to the Dover trial: LINK.

Here's a link to the youtube series, I'm embedding the first video to whet appetites: Why do people laugh at creationists?

905 wrote:

No no, you're doing it again. Don't confuse belief or even spiritual belief with religion. Belief is the natural cause and religion (or any other strong belief system) is the cultural effect. Another example is aggression, which science generally considers to be natural. But how it is expressed can be completely at odds with the instinct. Chess and the First World War had the same biological cause but were very different effects.

Fact: there is a part of the brain that, when stimulated, provokes spiritual feelings in the average person. Mediatation is one such stimulation, while mediatating it can be shown that blood rushes to this part of the brain and away from parts that moniter one's awareness of time. Some people are more prone to spiritual feelings than others.

I think the idea that spititual belief was an evolutionary freak would be very rare. Even Dawkins attributed some beneficial (though redundant) cause to it.

For the purposes of getting somewhere with this aspect of the discussion, it would be helpful if you would define what you mean by "belief".

Hermes wrote:

Someone please tell me that we're not discussing creationism.

The creationist wannabe hypothesis does not compete with evolution, it's not science. The thing about science and particularly, theory, is that via rational examination, bad theory can be falsified. Creationism cannot be falsified and thus is not a theory, it isn't even a hypothesis.

One of the big guns of the creationism 'argument' is irreducible complexity. This idea suggests that the probability of life developing on its own (see we're now talking about abiogenisis not evolution) is so small, that the chances of it happening are impossible. A tiny bit of lateral thinking, shoots this joke of an argument into the back of the head. Get a deck of cards, shuffle it, deal 10 cards from the top, make a note of them and the order in which they appeared. Repeat the whole process 20 times. Now calculate the probability of the occurrence of all the cards you've made note of. According to creationists, the results you've noted can't have happened randomly - yeah, God did it. Funnily enough, creationists miss the irony that adding the complexity of a creator into the picture adds to the improbability rather than diminishing it.

There's a guy on youtube (Thunderf00t) who has brought the best arguments I've ever seen regarding creationism versus evolution. 25 videos in the series and one helluva education. Deals with the debunked flagellum argument too. The creationists even got whipped by the tail of the flagellum in the Dover trial. Here's a link to the transcript to the Dover trial: LINK.

Here's a link to the youtube series, I'm embedding the first video to whet appetites: Why do people laugh at creationists?

Thanks Hermes. I'm not sure what creationists believe: is "intelligent design" ? I think there is more of an agnostic vs. evolutionist discussion going on here. But its hard to be sure.

Hermes, wasn't that a bit of low bullying against that poor innocent Jehovah's Witness Creationist boy above?

According to the genius below, the flagellum (one of the most amazing biological 'machines' known) evolved in the same random, haphazard way as a bunch of components rattling around in the back of my hiace will 'evolve' i.e. reassemble themselves with enough banging, knocking together and driving around the world for two billions years. (great choice of music though)



What I mean by 'outside influence' if I remember right is that there are other laws in nature that may supercede the evolutionary laws, however compelling those evolutionary laws are in the sense of ibis' reduction of the fight or flight instinct for example to fortunate mutated individuals in our past who fought or fled then f***ed and thanks to them now, most of us are here with the very handy fight or flight mechanism.

Now, I ask you, if evolution is correct then isn't eugenics a logical consequence of it? i.e. breeding out the bad genes, the mutations which will let us fall prey to lions and wolves, the sociopaths, psychopaths, anti-socials etc. etc. etc.

Darwinism is very concretely taken as a philosophical basis for the free market - "if it's strong enough in terms of adaptation then it'll survive - no need to interfere". Isn't there a bit of circularity here when we can use our own "consciousness" (whatever that is) to make decisions which allow us and our institutions to survive or not?

Maybe the straight-toothed American Beauties will arrive again on our shores to vanquish the weak, the anti-natural and the pure wrong.

Quote :

Now, I ask you, if evolution is correct then isn't eugenics a logical consequence of it? i.e. breeding out the bad genes, the mutations which will let us fall prey to lions and wolves, the sociopaths, psychopaths, anti-socials etc. etc. etc.

Nope. The reason being that all you will be doing is forcing "adaptation" to some set of arbitrary and artificial conditions, which may, but more likely may not, be what is actually needed.

Auditor #9 wrote:

Hermes, wasn't that a bit of low bullying against that poor innocent Jehovah's Witness Creationist boy above?

According to the genius below, the flagellum (one of the most amazing biological 'machines' known) evolved in the same random, haphazard way as a bunch of components rattling around in the back of my hiace will 'evolve' i.e. reassemble themselves with enough banging, knocking together and driving around the world for two billions years. (great choice of music though)



What I mean by 'outside influence' if I remember right is that there are other laws in nature that may supercede the evolutionary laws, however compelling those evolutionary laws are in the sense of ibis' reduction of the fight or flight instinct for example to fortunate mutated individuals in our past who fought or fled then f***ed and thanks to them now, most of us are here with the very handy fight or flight mechanism.

Now, I ask you, if evolution is correct then isn't eugenics a logical consequence of it? i.e. breeding out the bad genes, the mutations which will let us fall prey to lions and wolves, the sociopaths, psychopaths, anti-socials etc. etc. etc.

Darwinism is very concretely taken as a philosophical basis for the free market - "if it's strong enough in terms of adaptation then it'll survive - no need to interfere". Isn't there a bit of circularity here when we can use our own "consciousness" (whatever that is) to make decisions which allow us and our institutions to survive or not?
Maybe the straight-toothed American Beauties will arrive again on our shores to vanquish the weak, the anti-natural and the pure wrong.

I agree with Ibis that the chances of a eugenisist being able to anticipate the traits that will be most successful in future are remote.

To some extent Darwinism is misused in a crude way to justify individualist piracy. I would be far more concerned about Christian religion, that supports an ideology which believes the planet was given to humans for their use, rather than it being the complex and delicately balanced ecosystem in which we have evolved and on which we depend.

cactus flower wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

Hermes, wasn't that a bit of low bullying against that poor innocent Jehovah's Witness Creationist boy above?

According to the genius below, the flagellum (one of the most amazing biological 'machines' known) evolved in the same random, haphazard way as a bunch of components rattling around in the back of my hiace will 'evolve' i.e. reassemble themselves with enough banging, knocking together and driving around the world for two billions years. (great choice of music though)



What I mean by 'outside influence' if I remember right is that there are other laws in nature that may supercede the evolutionary laws, however compelling those evolutionary laws are in the sense of ibis' reduction of the fight or flight instinct for example to fortunate mutated individuals in our past who fought or fled then f***ed and thanks to them now, most of us are here with the very handy fight or flight mechanism.

Now, I ask you, if evolution is correct then isn't eugenics a logical consequence of it? i.e. breeding out the bad genes, the mutations which will let us fall prey to lions and wolves, the sociopaths, psychopaths, anti-socials etc. etc. etc.

Darwinism is very concretely taken as a philosophical basis for the free market - "if it's strong enough in terms of adaptation then it'll survive - no need to interfere". Isn't there a bit of circularity here when we can use our own "consciousness" (whatever that is) to make decisions which allow us and our institutions to survive or not?
Maybe the straight-toothed American Beauties will arrive again on our shores to vanquish the weak, the anti-natural and the pure wrong.

I agree with Ibis that the chances of a eugenisist being able to anticipate the traits that will be most successful in future are remote.

To some extent Darwinism is misused in a crude way to justify individualist piracy. I would be far more concerned about Christian religion, that supports and ideology which believes the planet was given to humans for their use, rather than it being the complex and delicately balanced ecosystem in which we have evolved and on which we depend.

Similarly, scientific observation are not normative - that is to say, that we observe that evolution happens doesn't mean we need to do something about it, or apply it to our daily affairs. I'm not sure why this happens in the case of evolution - nobody says "hey, the sun is hot, so we should set fire to our building". Well, maybe they do, but they get locked up.

Quote :

Similarly, scientific observation are not normative - that is to say, that we observe that evolution happens doesn't mean we need to do something about it, or apply it to our daily affairs. I'm not sure why this happens in the case of evolution - nobody says "hey, the sun is hot, so we should set fire to our building". Well, maybe they do, but they get locked up.

Is our free market theory based on the mechanics of it or am I a few protein short of a flagellum?

Auditor #9 wrote:

Quote :

Similarly, scientific observation are not normative - that is to say, that we observe that evolution happens doesn't mean we need to do something about it, or apply it to our daily affairs. I'm not sure why this happens in the case of evolution - nobody says "hey, the sun is hot, so we should set fire to our building". Well, maybe they do, but they get locked up.

Is our free market theory based on the mechanics of it or am I a few protein short of a flagellum?

I think this might be one for cookiemonster, but didn't Adam Smith come before Darwin ?

Evolution is not just "nature is red in tooth and claw". Its adaptation by attrition of those less suited to the environment and survival/multiplying of those better suited. Being able to hide very quietly and escape unwanted attention can be just as good an adaptation as roaring around eating everyone. Being part of a group able to support each other and avoid mutual damage might be the thing.

cactus flower wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

Quote :

Similarly, scientific observation are not normative - that is to say, that we observe that evolution happens doesn't mean we need to do something about it, or apply it to our daily affairs. I'm not sure why this happens in the case of evolution - nobody says "hey, the sun is hot, so we should set fire to our building". Well, maybe they do, but they get locked up.

Is our free market theory based on the mechanics of it or am I a few protein short of a flagellum?

I think this might be one for cookiemonster, but didn't Adam Smith come before Darwin ?

Evolution is not just "nature is red in tooth and claw". Its adaptation by attrition of those less suited to the environment and survival/multiplying of those better suited. Being able to hide very quietly and escape unwanted attention can be just as good an adaptation as roaring around eating everyone. Being part of a group able to support each other and avoid mutual damage might be the thing.

By attrition do you mean war, pillage, wanton genocide? I offer that attrition may have resulted in the evolutionary exit of the Neanderthals according to some theories but attrition is still only a tiny part of the development or otherwise of human beings.

Of course there are symbiotic relationships in nature too - again, why would this develop by accident? If someone can do up a CAD mini film of the flagellum assembling itself by accident then no doubt they will also explain why some birds clean the crocodiles teeth for them through mechanical accident. No one will explain how the crocodiles have their own languages and the wife crocodile wants to keep the little birdy because Mrs. Jones crocodile next door doesn't have a birdy so it doesn't make her look as important as bird-lover croc. If husband croc bites the little birdy then there'll be no shaking of the snake in the crocodile leaba for mister croc tonight.

Auditor #9 wrote:

Quote :

Similarly, scientific observation are not normative - that is to say, that we observe that evolution happens doesn't mean we need to do something about it, or apply it to our daily affairs. I'm not sure why this happens in the case of evolution - nobody says "hey, the sun is hot, so we should set fire to our building". Well, maybe they do, but they get locked up.

Is our free market theory based on the mechanics of it or am I a few protein short of a flagellum?

Nah. It's simply observed, again, that businesses 'evolve' like organisms, and the market 'evolves' like an ecosystem. The same is true for technology. Again, though, some people want to turn an observation into a normative statement, and say that because the marketplace operates a little bit like the natural world, we should adopt rules of behaviour that we imagine are those of the natural world. Actually, we're a bunch of tailless apes in suits playing an elaborate social game.

ibis wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

Quote :

Similarly, scientific observation are not normative - that is to say, that we observe that evolution happens doesn't mean we need to do something about it, or apply it to our daily affairs. I'm not sure why this happens in the case of evolution - nobody says "hey, the sun is hot, so we should set fire to our building". Well, maybe they do, but they get locked up.

Is our free market theory based on the mechanics of it or am I a few protein short of a flagellum?

Nah. It's simply observed, again, that businesses 'evolve' like organisms, and the market 'evolves' like an ecosystem. The same is true for technology. Again, though, some people want to turn an observation into a normative statement, and say that because the marketplace operates a little bit like the natural world, we should adopt rules of behaviour that we imagine are those of the natural world. Actually, we're a bunch of tailless apes in suits playing an elaborate social game.

I'll offer you that the normatisers are very predominant because of the compellingness of the structure of the fittest surviving. What if this becomes the prevailing philosophy, though it may be erroneously based as you have previously pointed out?

Can you see the dangers?

Auditor #9 wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

Quote :

Similarly, scientific observation are not normative - that is to say, that we observe that evolution happens doesn't mean we need to do something about it, or apply it to our daily affairs. I'm not sure why this happens in the case of evolution - nobody says "hey, the sun is hot, so we should set fire to our building". Well, maybe they do, but they get locked up.

Is our free market theory based on the mechanics of it or am I a few protein short of a flagellum?

I think this might be one for cookiemonster, but didn't Adam Smith come before Darwin ?

Evolution is not just "nature is red in tooth and claw". Its adaptation by attrition of those less suited to the environment and survival/multiplying of those better suited. Being able to hide very quietly and escape unwanted attention can be just as good an adaptation as roaring around eating everyone. Being part of a group able to support each other and avoid mutual damage might be the thing.

By attrition do you mean war, pillage, wanton genocide? I offer that attrition may have resulted in the evolutionary exit of the Neanderthals according to some theories but attrition is still only a tiny part of the development or otherwise of human beings.

Of course there are symbiotic relationships in nature too - again, why would this develop by accident? If someone can do up a CAD mini film of the flagellum assembling itself by accident then no doubt they will also explain why some birds clean the crocodiles teeth for them through mechanical accident. No one will explain how the crocodiles have their own languages and the wife crocodile wants to keep the little birdy because Mrs. Jones crocodile next door doesn't have a birdy so it doesn't make her look as important as bird-lover croc. If husband croc bites the little birdy then there'll be no shaking of the snake in the crocodile leaba for mister croc tonight.

Attrition is failure to make it to the age of reproduction for one reason or another. War pillage and genocide can wipe a group out all right, but if there are a few survivors they will quickly fill up the niche again in a few generations. Attrition is far more likely to be caused by not being healthy enough to resist the common cold, for example, or being lactose or gluten intolerant so your choice of available food is limited.

Audi, it didn't assemble itself from bits and pieces, its an organism that is the outcome of generations of its forebears having little mutations and passing them on. There is no comparison between the two things.

Auditor #9 wrote:

ibis wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

Quote :

Similarly, scientific observation are not normative - that is to say, that we observe that evolution happens doesn't mean we need to do something about it, or apply it to our daily affairs. I'm not sure why this happens in the case of evolution - nobody says "hey, the sun is hot, so we should set fire to our building". Well, maybe they do, but they get locked up.

Is our free market theory based on the mechanics of it or am I a few protein short of a flagellum?

Nah. It's simply observed, again, that businesses 'evolve' like organisms, and the market 'evolves' like an ecosystem. The same is true for technology. Again, though, some people want to turn an observation into a normative statement, and say that because the marketplace operates a little bit like the natural world, we should adopt rules of behaviour that we imagine are those of the natural world. Actually, we're a bunch of tailless apes in suits playing an elaborate social game.

I'll offer you that the normatisers are very predominant because of the compellingness of the structure of the fittest surviving. What if this becomes the prevailing philosophy, though it may be erroneously based as you have previously pointed out?

Can you see the dangers?

Sure.

ibis wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

ibis wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

Quote :

Similarly, scientific observation are not normative - that is to say, that we observe that evolution happens doesn't mean we need to do something about it, or apply it to our daily affairs. I'm not sure why this happens in the case of evolution - nobody says "hey, the sun is hot, so we should set fire to our building". Well, maybe they do, but they get locked up.

Is our free market theory based on the mechanics of it or am I a few protein short of a flagellum?

Nah. It's simply observed, again, that businesses 'evolve' like organisms, and the market 'evolves' like an ecosystem. The same is true for technology. Again, though, some people want to turn an observation into a normative statement, and say that because the marketplace operates a little bit like the natural world, we should adopt rules of behaviour that we imagine are those of the natural world. Actually, we're a bunch of tailless apes in suits playing an elaborate social game.

I'll offer you that the normatisers are very predominant because of the compellingness of the structure of the fittest surviving. What if this becomes the prevailing philosophy, though it may be erroneously based as you have previously pointed out?

Can you see the dangers?

Sure.

Are people really saying that so much these days ? Most of our craziest reactionaries are waving God in one hand and a gun in the other.

So, there may be no conscious decision-making in the process of evolution? It's always going to be an accident, always going to be random?

Auditor #9 wrote:

So, there may be no conscious decision-making in the process of evolution? It's always going to be an accident, always going to be random?

That's a very good question imo Auditor #9. I think Ibis thinks it is random because we're not likely to be able to guess correctly what will work out best for ourselves, or to have control over those factors anyway. I kind of agree with him but with the add on that we have evolved into a species that tries to do just that, and that there is every reason to have our best crack at it.

cactus flower wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

So, there may be no conscious decision-making in the process of evolution? It's always going to be an accident, always going to be random?

That's a very good question imo Auditor #9. I think Ibis thinks it is random because we're not likely to be able to guess correctly what will work out best for ourselves, or to have control over those factors anyway. I kind of agree with him but with the add on that we have evolved into a species that tries to do just that, and that there is every reason to have our best crack at it.

We are now an animal or biological mechanism that has reached these heights of complexity and danger: we may take something the size of your car and let it fall from a plane to destroy a small city of people. We see sides and weigh and make conscious moral decisions between evil or lesser evil. We came from the slime, we're intimately related to it, as we are related to stones and inanimate bones yet we have the power to wipe out our species.

Outside influences eh?

I agree with Ibis. We are a bunch of tailless apes in suits. Though why we have the suits beats me, considering we lost a fine coat of hair/fur just so we could someday have to buy suits.

Evolution explains the diversity of life. Economics and the free market, to me, seems to be about survival of the fittest whereby diversity is slowly removed from the picture. The comparison to evolution is apt. But it's evolution in reverse.

The same can be said for the eugenics argument. To attempt to create a 'master race' is to remove diversity. It's evolution in reverse. Make a bunch of 'perfect' humans and kill the rest. Before long, you'll have something like the British Royal family and evolution can begin anew.

The idea of the impossibility of componants spontaneously assembling themselves into an intricate machine is a very old argument. It used to be a pocket watch that self-assembled and later, it became a 747 that resulted from a tornado blowing through a junkyard. Perspective is a great tool for examining this type of argument. To a bacteria, if it could observe or think, a 747 being assembled by a group of workers in a factory wouldn't be a whole lot different than a 747 being created via the interaction between a tornado and the contents of a junkyard. Imagine looking at either process from a subatomic perspective, it'd all be particles in a maelstrom, more to the point the end result too, would be particles in a maelstrom, there'd be no creation. Creation is a concept and being a concept must follow the advent of consciousness. More to the point, creation coupled with understanding is intimately tied to perspective. In as far as man is concerned, tool making and toy making are merely behaviours that are no more complex or mysterious than a cow chewing the cud.

Intelligent design fails on quite a few levels. The most significant failure, in my view, is that it disproves itself. Let's look at the self-assembling watch.

The creationist/intelligent design proponant argues that the complexity of the mechanism requires an intelligence and an intention to facilitate its existence and subsequent manufacture. One must logically conclude that the creator of this mechanism is more complex than his creation. Such a wonderfully complex creator couldn't have spontaneously arisen and must therefore be a creation too - and so on. As a side note, the intelligent design argument via its internal flaw and contradiction, predicts that creations get simpler as time progresses. From observation alone we know the reverse happens. Other than observation arguing against intelligent design, we have the second law of thermodynamics, entropy, which has never once been shown to be wrong, saying that complexity increases over time, it does not reduce.

One of my best mates is a Jehovah's witness. I'd never attempt to bully him, he's 6 4' and built like a shrick bithouse and would disassemble my arse like a pile of leaves in a windstorm.